Abortion Discussion

lazygal

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Because your right to choose what happens to your own body doesn't supercede your unborn child's right to life.

Medical procedures (such as the one poor Savita should have received) are fine but "lifestyle abortions" (i.e. the use of abortion as a retrospective contraceptive) are a disgrace.

Ah Jack, that's an opinion, not a compelling argument. Why do I have to gestate and birth a foetus because of your views?

I actually don't think even you would force a woman to gestate and birth a foetus if, say, she was a nine year old rape victim as the doctor in the Pat Kenny show has treated. Her pelvis isn't capable of birth. Should she be sliced open in a c section delivery, compromising her health and future fertility options, just because you say so?

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Because your right to choose what happens to your own body doesn't supercede your unborn child's right to life.

...........

...abortions involves killing children?

28064212

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Because your right to choose what happens to your own body doesn't supercede your unborn child's right to life

And yet, after the child is born (i.e. when it's an actual, breathing, living human), my right to choose what happens to my own body does supercede my child's right to life. No parent is ever forced to give up an organ to save the life of a living child, even if that child will die without it

mbiking123

28064212 wrote: »

And yet, after the child is born (i.e. when it's an actual, breathing, living human), my right to choose what happens to my own body does supercede my child's right to life. No parent is ever forced to give up an organ to save the life of a living child, even if that child will die without it

So if you cant breath, does that mean you have no right to life ?

28064212

mbiking123 wrote: »

So if you cant breath, does that mean you have no right to life ?

I said no such thing.

lazygal

mbiking123 wrote: »

So if you cant breath, does that mean you have no right to life ?

Well no one has the right to violate anyone's bodily integrity even if its a life or death matter. For some reason some people think this doesn't apply to pregnancy and women are fair game to have their bodily integrity violated for up to 42 weeks and then have to give birth. Its a puzzler.

Obliq

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Because your right to choose what happens to your own body doesn't supercede your unborn child's right to life

Says you, but not me. I'm the one with the womb, so tbh, I'm the one holding the baby (or embryo - as if it was a case of an unwanted pregnancy, an embryo is what we are talking about). How does your say on the subject matter more than mine? Genuinely interested in your reply. Try to keep the emotions out of it, and we may get somewhere. Also, bear in mind you are talking to a woman who already has 2 children.

lazygal

Obliq wrote: »

Says you, but not me. I'm the one with the womb, so tbh, I'm the one holding the baby (or embryo - as if it was a case of an unwanted pregnancy, an embryo is what we are talking about). How does your say on the subject matter more than mine? Genuinely interested in your reply. Try to keep the emotions out of it, and we may get somewhere. Also, bear in mind you are talking to a woman who already has 2 children.

Me too, number two is suckling as I type.

Obliq

lazygal wrote: »

Me too, number two is suckling as I type.

My second has gone to bed, ready for school in the morning. Imagine if I got pregnant, despite all efforts to the contrary, now? I'd be having a baby at 42, with huge health risks to both myself and the baby, and with massive consequences for my 12 and 15 yr olds. Who SHOULD take the decision in this circumstance? The parent in question, or the man who has morals that the parent doesn't hold? Hmmm. No brainer, I feel.

Frito

Obliq wrote: »

My second has gone to bed, ready for school in the morning. Imagine if I got pregnant, despite all efforts to the contrary, now? I'd be having a baby at 42, with huge health risks to both myself and the baby, and with massive consequences for my 12 and 15 yr olds. Who SHOULD take the decision in this circumstance? The parent in question, or the man who has morals that the parent doesn't hold? Hmmm. No brainer, I feel.

Well now little lady, having an abortion would depend on whether or not you enjoyed the sex.

If yes, then definitely not.

If no then probably not.

All jokes aside, what an awful predicament to face. Here's hoping it stays hypothetical for us.

Pherekydes

Frito wrote: »

All jokes aside, what an awful predicament to face. Here's hoping it stays hypothetical for us.

Well, it's nothing to do with us. I think that's the point being made.

Obliq

Sigh. That was one of those times where I thought I said something very clearly, but it seems to have gone wrong.

lazygal

Obliq wrote: »

Sigh. That was one of those times where I thought I said something very clearly, but it seems to have gone wrong.

See that's why wimmins need people like Jack to tell us what we can and can't do. Otherwise we'd be in all kinds of muddles.

kylith

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Because your right to choose what happens to your own body doesn't supercede your unborn child's right to life.

Medical procedures (such as the one poor Savita should have received) are fine but "lifestyle abortions" (i.e. the use of abortion as a retrospective contraceptive) are a disgrace.

What about if the contraception fails? Would that be an acceptable abortion in your view, or is the fact that the the woman was having sex for enjoyment enough to warrant enforcing the pregnancy? What if it's a teenage girl who was pressured into sex by her boyfriend, or who didn't understand the mechanism by which pregnancy happens because of piss-poor sex education? Does a woman who has been raped count as a 'lifestyle abortion'?

What if your fifteen year old daughter came home in tears because she discovered she was pregnant? Would you say 'Tough luck my dear, you have to carry that foetus to term', or would you be on the next flight to London with her?

PopePalpatine

Nah, he'd probably take away her passport.

_rebelkid

I get really annoyed when people say Pro-Choice is Pro-Abortion. Day dnt no inglish v gud.

Pro-Choice is wanting the option of Abortion to be available to women and families if they want and/or need it. It does not "recommend" abortion as preferential treatment over gestation and birth, but will not judge or shame women who chose Abortion. The whole point of Pro-Choice is just that; Choice. All we want is for the option to be available.

Pro-Abortion people, (even though I don't think they exist, I'll pander the idea), by definition, want women to chose Abortion over gestation and birth EVERY SINGLE TIME. They want every pregnancy to end in an abortion, whatever that results in. They see Abortion as the only "solution" to pregnancy, and see birth as a heinous act of disgust and vulgarity.

Now, would anyone from the Pro-Life side try and tell me that I'm pro-abortion again?

old hippy

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I've made my position clear.

Your position is to restrain women against their will, a violation, if you will.

Your position is dangerous, disturbing, extremist and misogynistic.

Jack Kyle

28064212 wrote: »

And yet, after the child is born (i.e. when it's an actual, breathing, living human), my right to choose what happens to my own body does supercede my child's right to life. No parent is ever forced to give up an organ to save the life of a living child, even if that child will die without it

There's a fatal error in your logic.

Compelling women not to have abortions and forcing women to donate organs are not the same.

When a woman is pregnant, a dependent relationship already exists between the woman and the unborn child. It's more akin to a scenario where an donor has already given an organ and "changes her mind", thus seeking to terminate the dependent relationship and killing the donee.

As for the incessant thanking of posts advocating abortion and the general "go girl" anti-male agenda within this thread...laughable.

Abortion is not a women's issue. It is society's issue.

old hippy

Jack Kyle wrote: »

There's a fatal error in your logic.

Compelling women not to have abortions and forcing women to donate organs are not the same.

When a woman is pregnant, a dependent relationship already exists between the woman and the unborn child. It's more akin to a scenario where an donor has already given an organ and "changes her mind", thus seeking to terminate the dependent relationship and killing the donee.

As for the incessant thanking of posts advocating abortion and the general "go girl" anti-male agenda within this thread...laughable.

Abortion is not a women's issue. It is society's issue.

It's hardly anti-male to be against restraining women against their will.

28064212

Jack Kyle wrote: »

When a woman is pregnant, a dependent relationship already exists between the woman and the unborn child. It's more akin to a scenario where an donor has already given an organ and "changes her mind", thus seeking to terminate the dependent relationship and killing the donee.

An organ donor can't request the return of an organ after donation. What they can do is withdraw the consent at any time before the transfer happens, up to and including on the operation table.

Classic example: You wake up tomorrow and find out your organs have been hooked up to a dying child's. The child can no longer survive on their own, and removal of the connection will kill the child. Do you have the right to sever the connection? Of course you do, you have the right to bodily integrity. The only instance where that right is not observed is when woman are forced to carry a pregnancy to full-term

Delirium

Jack Kyle wrote: »

There's a fatal error in your logic.

Compelling women not to have abortions and forcing women to donate organs are not the same.

When a woman is pregnant, a dependent relationship already exists between the woman and the unborn child. It's more akin to a scenario where an donor has already given an organ and "changes her mind", thus seeking to terminate the dependent relationship and killing the donee.

Telling a woman that she must undergo 9 months of her body changing against her will is comparable to forcing her to donate an organ. Both have serious implications for their physical and mental health.

I can't think of any other medical instance where a person is compelled to under something against their wishes. People aren't forced to donate blood, and that wouldn't even be as big an ordeal as a pregnancy.

Abortion is not a women's issue. It is society's issue.

Women are the ones who go through the pregnancy. You can't separate abortion from women.

kylith

Jack Kyle wrote: »

There's a fatal error in your logic.

Compelling women not to have abortions and forcing women to donate organs are not the same.

When a woman is pregnant, a dependent relationship already exists between the woman and the unborn child. It's more akin to a scenario where an donor has already given an organ and "changes her mind", thus seeking to terminate the dependent relationship and killing the donee.

It is not akin to a post organ donation scenario as the donor would have given permission for the organ donation to go ahead. It is certainly more akin to a forced organ donation, like waking up and discovering that your kidney is gone and there's a doctor there saying 'Don't worry, we'll give it back in 9 months. Until then you can expect to gain weight, vomit, sweat, and potentially develop one or more life-threatening diseases. What do you mean you're not happy about it?"

As for the incessant thanking of posts advocating abortion and the general "go girl" anti-male agenda within this thread...laughable.

How dare we speak up about issues which affect us and our bodies. And how dare we applaud women for speaking up about an issue that until recently has had, and still largely has, huge stigma attached to it. It's only because we're rampaging feminists that we have opinions about what happens to us, I tell you.

Abortion is not a women's issue. It is society's issue.

Until doctors can come up with a way for an unwanted foetus to be transplanted into your body abortion is, and will remain, a women's issue.

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

There's a fatal error in your logic.

Compelling women not to have abortions and forcing women to donate organs are not the same.

When a woman is pregnant, a dependent relationship already exists between the woman and the unborn child. It's more akin to a scenario where an donor has already given an organ and "changes her mind", thus seeking to terminate the dependent relationship and killing the donee.

As for the incessant thanking of posts advocating abortion and the general "go girl" anti-male agenda within this thread...laughable.

Abortion is not a women's issue. It is society's issue.

*snicker

Since when is it anti-male to think women should have control over their own bodies?

gaynorvader

kylith wrote: »

{...}
Until doctors can come up with a way for an unwanted foetus to be transplanted into your body abortion is, and will remain, a women's issue.

Why is this not possible? I wonder if it's been tried or if we're far away from being able to do this.

lazygal

gaynorvader wrote: »

Why is this not possible? I wonder if it's been tried or if we're far away from being able to do this.

Even extracting an egg from a woman is a difficult and invasive procedure requiring a lot of treatment. I don't see how a zygote or embryo would be extracted easily.

Genghiz Cohen

Anti-male agenda?

Jack Kyle

28064212 wrote: »

An organ donor can't request the return of an organ after donation. What they can do is withdraw the consent at any time before the transfer happens, up to and including on the operation table.

Classic example: You wake up tomorrow and find out your organs have been hooked up to a dying child's. The child can no longer survive on their own, and removal of the connection will kill the child. Do you have the right to sever the connection? Of course you do, you have the right to bodily integrity. The only instance where that right is not observed is when woman are forced to carry a pregnancy to full-term

No you do not!

That's the salient point. If you've agreed to be hooked up to a donee and a dependent relationship has been created you do not have the right to withdraw consent.

Someone must stand up for the unborn child. This is not a women's issue.

old hippy

Jack Kyle wrote: »

No you do not!

That's the salient point. If you've agreed to be hooked up to a donee and a dependent relationship has been created you do not have the right to withdraw consent.

Someone must stand up for the unborn child. This is not a women's issue.

And that someone's going to be you, Jack? No matter what it takes and how much pain to the woman it involves?

You're damn wrong. This absolutely is a women's issue.

28064212

Jack Kyle wrote: »

No you do not!

That's the salient point. If you've agreed to be hooked up to a donee and a dependent relationship has been created you do not have the right to withdraw consent.

What world are you living in? No-one has the right to use of my body without my explicit and continuing consent.

Obliq

Jack Kyle wrote: »

No you do not!

That's the salient point. If you've agreed to be hooked up to a donee and a dependent relationship has been created you do not have the right to withdraw consent.

Someone must stand up for the unborn child. This is not a women's issue.

What if you haven't agreed? You miss this point again and again. If I get pregnant against my wishes, I HAVE NOT AGREED to have a baby. As I am a woman, that would be my issue to decide and nobody elses.